I don't think Australia was especially bad, and obviously to some extent it's more worthwhile to give players a go than defend records, but it did reveal some of the folly in planning. It was a good score for the bowlers to go out and defend from a weak batting side. It wasn't about the typical ODI mumbo jumbo of dot balls and keeping the batsman guessing. It was about old fashioned wicket taking. Starc did his job. Lyon also did his job well, he cost some runs, but he was striving for wickets, which he got. Of the rest, well, can you blame them for being bits and pieces players? That might be harsh, but really, all of them have come to provenance not because they can bowl but because they can do both. Maxwell obviously is more in the side to bat and Marsh is still a bit unknown as to whether he's going to be worth more with the bat or ball, but Faulkner and Cutting were picked 8 and 9. They had to be top shelf bowlers and I just didn't see it. This is the sort of planning that is preoccupied with the sort of uber-belter pitches where you don't really bowl sides out, just smash them with superior batting. When the game could actually be won by bowlers, they couldn't deliver.
In Maxwell is the obvious quandary for any one day team, in that if you're going to have lots of spin options, they need to be able to bat. Less likely is that you have seam up all-rounders so you can take your pick of spinners. Sometimes teams are lucky. Australia might fancy itself such a fortunate team in the near future, but it has to be prepared to select the likes of Faulkner in its top 7. That's the risk of all-rounders, it's not just about adding value at number 8, but being prepared to do both jobs reliably.
Above all else, it's a bit of a curious distraction from World Cup preparations. I do think Australia are going to have to deal with more of this in their UAE tour, but fast forward six months and I really don't see it being as big a deal.
